So how exactly does the momentum change,given that there's no point or reason in believing anything that goes against the mainstream?
(
my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Tue 7 Apr 2009, 16:50,
archived)
I suppose the momentum changes,Because some people are not capable of going with the flow, and seek to change things.
Things changes.
Slowly.
Meantime, there are a bunch of people enjoying themselves, and not paying too much attention to the moralistic positions of those who aren't.
(,
Tue 7 Apr 2009, 17:10,
archived)
Things changes.
Slowly.
Meantime, there are a bunch of people enjoying themselves, and not paying too much attention to the moralistic positions of those who aren't.
I'm sure they're enjoying themselves too.Presumably they get more enjoyment from abiding by their moral view of the world than they would from eating a bit of meat now and then, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
I'm guessing there have been some changes you like, such as free health care and equality. But you'd still argue against the people who went against the mainstream to fight to instigate them?
(I'm guessing there have been some changes you like, such as free health care and equality. But you'd still argue against the people who went against the mainstream to fight to instigate them?
my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Tue 7 Apr 2009, 17:15,
archived)
Yes I would.Equality is another horrible illusion. I'm all for advancement based on utilitarian merit, not on some arbitrary government declaration.
Eg. If some total tard gets a job instead of me, because targets for racial equality need to be met, I would consider that to be a disgrace.
Free health care I'm not fussed either way about. Ultimately, its probably a lot more efficient for health to operate in the private sector, but I respect the utilitarian arguments in favour of public health, as the health of a countries economy is directly linked to the health of its populous.
(,
Tue 7 Apr 2009, 17:22,
archived)
Eg. If some total tard gets a job instead of me, because targets for racial equality need to be met, I would consider that to be a disgrace.
Free health care I'm not fussed either way about. Ultimately, its probably a lot more efficient for health to operate in the private sector, but I respect the utilitarian arguments in favour of public health, as the health of a countries economy is directly linked to the health of its populous.
I said equality, not positive discrimination.But the government does sometimes get confused between the two.
I am a little confused as to why you're arguing for the stagnation of mankind.
(I am a little confused as to why you're arguing for the stagnation of mankind.
my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Tue 7 Apr 2009, 17:26,
archived)